<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (3) TMI 274 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92086</link>
    <description>Excise duty could not be levied on a jeep cleared after repairs merely because its assessable value and duty rate had increased. The record did not establish that the repairs amounted to manufacture, and in the absence of such a finding the later clearance did not create a fresh duty liability. The demand notice was therefore unsustainable on the facts stated, as duty under central excise law depends on manufacture and not on a subsequent increase in value or rate alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:20:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 274 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92086</link>
      <description>Excise duty could not be levied on a jeep cleared after repairs merely because its assessable value and duty rate had increased. The record did not establish that the repairs amounted to manufacture, and in the absence of such a finding the later clearance did not create a fresh duty liability. The demand notice was therefore unsustainable on the facts stated, as duty under central excise law depends on manufacture and not on a subsequent increase in value or rate alone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>